Ashes 2005 Revisited

[Richard]

And we've won...what...8 Tests since is it? And's that including the Pakistan at the oval farce.

I wouldn't swap the Ashes win in 05 for anything in the world, I look back so happily on those times, alas I can't help but think that things might have been very different if Australia had won at the Oval. We'll never know though, but it was the old "job done, feet up" routine, which is quite frankly, bollocks, and we haven't been good enough for quite some time, as long as it's taken me to realise.

Disagree, TBH. We could very easily have won in Pakistan, all it would've taken was a bit more resolve on that last day at Gaddafi Stadium (another hour after Lunch without losing more than 1 wicket and we'd have had the draw in the bag) and avoiding that bloody collapse at Multan when we were cruising. Equally, we'd have beaten Sri Lanka but for the stupid number of dropped catches at Lord's. And you never know - had Dhoni been given out when he was caught behind on 46, we'd have gone 1-0 up against India and who knows, might have won that one too.

That's before we even come to the injuries. It was never realistic to think any team could survive the loss of Simon Jones, Giles, Vaughan, Trescothick, Flintoff and Hoggard for a fair amount of games each and not have performances drop-off. Going through 3 years without any injury worries is always unlikely, but we've had more bad luck than our due IMO, and to say we rested on our laurels would, to me, be untrue - many of the players who've played since then, even outside the obvious cases of the Plunketts et al, simply aren't remotely up to the required standard. Heck, Geraint Jones and Harmison were playing in that Ashes in 2005.

 

[GIMH]

The guy who does deserve some credit is whichever umpire made that absolutely critical not-out decision when the short ball from Lee took something that turned out not to be glove or bat on the way through to Gilchrist.

Wasn't it from McGrath...where it hit his shoulder? Hat-trick ball IIRC. had to pick my heart up from the floor

 

[GIMH]

Disagree, TBH. We could very easily have won in Pakistan, all it would've taken was a bit more resolve on that last day at Gaddafi Stadium (another hour after Lunch without losing more than 1 wicket and we'd have had the draw in the bag) and avoiding that bloody collapse at Multan when we were cruising.

yeah, I've agreed with you in the past that we weren't dominated in pakistan by any means, but we were pretty bloody arrogant in Multan, and I feel that our team felt that they had it in the bag at the end of day 4. At the end of the day, you can only blame our players for the collapse, and I think they would have wanted it more had they not proved themselves with victory over Australia. Or felt they'd proved themselves I should say.

Equally, we'd have beaten Sri Lanka but for the stupid number of dropped catches at Lord's. And you never know - had Dhoni been given out when he was caught behind on 46, we'd have gone 1-0 up against India and who knows, might have won that one too.

Well dropped catches, we can only ever blame ourselves for, and quite frankly that was one of the most disgusting performances I've ever seen from a team I support in sport, from a fielding POV. Can't remember the Dhoni thing though.

That's before we even come to the injuries. It was never realistic to think any team could survive the loss of Simon Jones, Giles, Vaughan, Trescothick, Flintoff and Hoggard for a fair amount of games each and not have performances drop-off. Going through 3 years without any injury worries is always unlikely, but we've had more bad luck than our due IMO, and to say we rested on our laurels would, to me, be untrue - many of the players who've played since then, even outside the obvious cases of the Plunketts et al, simply aren't remotely up to the required standard. Heck, Geraint Jones and Harmison were playing in that Ashes in 2005.

Yeah, injuries are a fair point, but I do still think things would have gone differently had we not won the Ashes.

 

[Richard]

Australia's dominance since has cast it in possibly an even rosier glow from the distance of two-&-a-bit years. There was a slight tendancy amongst some posters on here to talk Oz down afterwards as if they hadn't been that good all the way along. Well, they bloody were, you know!

TBH, I feel this is a slightly dubious one.

How many Australians who did not perform well in that series came-out and started doing so again afterwards?

Hayden

That's it.

Langer, Warne, Ponting and McGrath weren't disgraced in 2005 and no-one with any sense said they'd been "not that good all along"; Martyn had more problems with Umpiring decisions than he did with English bowlers; Clarke, Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Katich were promptly dropped (and Tait hasn't played since due in part to not being considered a good enough option and in part due to injury). And Gilchrist and Lee have by-and-large continued to be relatively ineffective.

So yes, I do feel Australia have been better since than they were in 2005. Quite a bit better, in fact. I honestly think England could have had the entire 2005 side in 2006\07 and they'd very probably still have lost, if probably not 5-0.

 

[wpdavid]

Wasn't it from McGrath...where it hit his shoulder? Hat-trick ball IIRC. had to pick my heart up from the floor

Ah, quite possibly. Yeah, I wasn't in great shape at that point either.

 

[Richard]

yeah, I've agreed with you in the past that we weren't dominated in pakistan by any means, but we were pretty bloody arrogant in Multan, and I feel that our team felt that they had it in the bag at the end of day 4. At the end of the day, you can only blame our players for the collapse, and I think they would have wanted it more had they not proved themselves with victory over Australia. Or felt they'd proved themselves I should say.

Maybe. We had it in the bag, virtually, at Lunch on day-five, never mind the end of day-four. More than anyone, for mine, it was Pietersen getting out to Sami that caused the problems. He should have smashed that ball, but instead he nicked it. Arrogance? Complacency? I'd say more "typical Pietersen" myself TBH. And later it was Geraint Jones' wicket that put the final nail in the coffin, made me go from "we've still got a chance here" to "that's the end of that". Complacency? Just typical Geraint Jones IMO.

Well dropped catches, we can only ever blame ourselves for, and quite frankly that was one of the most disgusting performances I've ever seen from a team I support in sport, from a fielding POV.

The most abysmal, bar one, for mine, the other being South Africa throughout their Australian series 6 months earlier.

We can indeed only blame ourselves, but can we say it was complacency? I don't really think so TBH.

Can't remember the Dhoni thing though.

Dhoni was caught behind on 46, given not-out, ended not-out with 9 wickets down... and he was given not-out to an lbw later on too which was out as well...

 

[iamdavid]

It baffled me, it really did - people have said the signs were there beforehand. Well, not really. He bowled below his best in 3 Tests in New Zealand beforehand, but he was nowhere near, and I mean nowhere near, as awful as he was in England in ODIs and Tests.

However, you say he's not bounced back - he's not done in Tests because he's not had the chance (vs Test-class-teams). But his form in domestic cricket has, UIMM, been as good as ever. It'll be a terrible shame if that series is indeed the end to his (vs Test-class-teams) Test career.

But I've said all along that, for me, the decline of Gillespie was possibly the biggest factor that turned Australia from unlikely to be defeated into a side that could be dominated. Most of the other players were genuinely worked-out (Hayden, Gilchrist) or were extremely unfortunate (Martyn, McGrath) or were just plain not-that-good to start with (Lee, Clarke, Tait in the 2 Tests he played). I suppose only Katich and to a small extent Ponting (who averaged "only" 39.88) shared Gillespie's sense of disappointment-***-bafflement. Langer and Warne, for mine, came out of the series knowing they could have done little more.

For me Gillespie's poor spell actually started in the first innings of the first test of that New Zealand tour, where he charged in all day and was made to look like a 3rd grade club bowler (minimal exageration there) by Hamish Marshall, he just appeared to have lost his zip off the wicket. I dont know what caused it as he played all 5 home tests during the summer and bowled pretty well without luck, and some 5 months earlier in India he had been in career-best form.

His figures in domestic cricket since his dumping have been acceptable (hardly brilliant) and I think that can be put more down to his control and bowling intelligence, as from what I've seen he hasnt regained any of the extra pace or zip that deserted him during that Ashes series.

 

[Stapel]

What I remember best is the end of the 3rd test.

Aussies were cheering like they had just won the series. English players were looking pretty sad. But the truth is that the Aussies only had escaped a loss, simply because the last over of the fifth day had been bowled. That did it, imho: Aussies celebrating a narrow escape. That was when all of us could tell Australian cricketers are only human and actually CAN lose a test series. There they lost their superiority (and it was the team including McGrath).

The best in-game moment was probably Flintoff's first over of the Aussie's 2nd innings, Dismissing Langer with the 2nd (?) ball and Ponting for a duck with the last ball of the over.

 

[Richard]

For me Gillespie's poor spell actually started in the first innings of the first test of that New Zealand tour, where he charged in all day and was made to look like a 3rd grade club bowler (minimal exageration there) by Hamish Marshall, he just appeared to have lost his zip off the wicket. I dont know what caused it as he played all 5 home tests during the summer and bowled pretty well without luck, and some 5 months earlier in India he had been in career-best form.

His figures in domestic cricket since his dumping have been acceptable (hardly brilliant) and I think that can be put more down to his control and bowling intelligence, as from what I've seen he hasnt regained any of the extra pace or zip that deserted him during that Ashes series.

Edit required?

Interesting what you say, though - we didn't get New Zealand cricket until last winter (saw the SL series) unless England were there, so I really have never heard much about that series.

Too many people, for mine, saw his figures in the home season and said "ah he was clearly losing it" when he blatantly was doing nothing of the sort - as you say, bowled pretty well with much bad luck.

What annoys me more is that he was 30 at the time - the sort of age you hope to be entering your prime, not disappearing never to return again.

 

[iamdavid]

What annoys me more is that he was 30 at the time - the sort of age you hope to be entering your prime, not disappearing never to return again.

Hmm as a batsman perhaps, but a seamer, particularly one to whom pace is a big weapon, I think 30 is generally about when the decline begins. However normally the decline in pace is offset by experience and 'knowing your game very well' and I think we're seeing that with Lee atm. What was so alarming and fatal with Gillespie was just the speed with which his pace and menace seemed to vanish, as in India he had appeared as nippy and hostile as ever, and then several months later (without a major injury as far as I recall) he seemed an overwhelmed medium-pacer, out of his depth at the highest level.

 

[BoyBrumby]

TBH, I feel this is a slightly dubious one.

How many Australians who did not perform well in that series came-out and started doing so again afterwards?

Hayden

That's it.

Langer, Warne, Ponting and McGrath weren't disgraced in 2005 and no-one with any sense said they'd been "not that good all along"; Martyn had more problems with Umpiring decisions than he did with English bowlers; Clarke, Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Katich were promptly dropped (and Tait hasn't played since due in part to not being considered a good enough option and in part due to injury). And Gilchrist and Lee have by-and-large continued to be relatively ineffective.

So yes, I do feel Australia have been better since than they were in 2005. Quite a bit better, in fact. I honestly think England could have had the entire 2005 side in 2006\07 and they'd very probably still have lost, if probably not 5-0.

Pretty one-eyed assessment of quite a few players there. Since the Ashes of 2005 Lee, for instance, has averaged a shade under 27.5 per wicket which compares favourably with his overall figure of 31 and very favourably with the 40 apiece he went for in that series. "Relatively ineffective" is harsh in the extreme. Same with Gilchrist, not the player he was 2 or 3 years ago, but has averaged more than the 22 he managed in the 2005 battle for the urn.

& yes, Ponting wasn't disgraced, but his was still a relative failure. He averaged under 40 for the series, boosted by one magnificent innings, and comfortably down of his near-60 career average.

Clarke and Martyn were dropped but both came back and (the former particularly) have scored good runs. Katich hasn't been seen in the test team again, but is making hay in the Pura Cup, so really only Gillespie (who was dropped after 3 tests of the series anyway) and Kasper (only selected due to McGrath's injuries anyway) weakened the Aussie line-up when compared to thise who've followed since.

It downgrades both our achievement and Australia to say they weren't a very, very good team in 2005.

 

[iamdavid]

I think Katich was a very interesting case in that series, the perception afterwards was that'd he'd been poor which subsequently led to his dropping after a failure or two against the West Indies.
But really I dont think he let too many people down, he played excellent innings under pressure in the first and fourth tests (the innings at Nottingham in the face of some sensational bowling). And was unlucky on several occasions, suffering a poor decision or two and also being stranded to bat with the tail a couple of times. I generally got the impression he made the best of bad situation despite pretty ordinary figures for the tour, he was made to look silly by Jones/Flintoff a couple of times (Ive seen countless replays of him leaving that Flintoff inswinger only to loose offstump), but so would many of great players the way they bowled at times in that series.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, agree completely. Katich has been an absurdly unlucky Test-cricketer for mine, could quite easily have 50 games under his belt with an average in the high-40s now had he been treated better.

 

[GIMH]

Maybe. We had it in the bag, virtually, at Lunch on day-five, never mind the end of day-four. More than anyone, for mine, it was Pietersen getting out to Sami that caused the problems. He should have smashed that ball, but instead he nicked it. Arrogance? Complacency? I'd say more "typical Pietersen" myself TBH. And later it was Geraint Jones' wicket that put the final nail in the coffin, made me go from "we've still got a chance here" to "that's the end of that". Complacency? Just typical Geraint Jones IMO.

The most abysmal, bar one, for mine, the other being South Africa throughout their Australian series 6 months earlier.

We can indeed only blame ourselves, but can we say it was complacency? I don't really think so TBH.

Dhoni was caught behind on 46, given not-out, ended not-out with 9 wickets down... and he was given not-out to an lbw later on too which was out as well...

Right, I thought you were talking about India away...ignore me...

 

[Richard]

Pretty one-eyed assessment of quite a few players there. Since the Ashes of 2005 Lee, for instance, has averaged a shade under 27.5 per wicket which compares favourably with his overall figure of 31 and very favourably with the 40 apiece he went for in that series. "Relatively ineffective" is harsh in the extreme. Same with Gilchrist, not the player he was 2 or 3 years ago, but has averaged more than the 22 he managed in the 2005 battle for the urn.

Gilchrist has been virtually nothing since 2005, in any guise, against any team.

Lee, meanwhile, has bowled no better than ever. He's had the odd very weak team (West Indies) and, unusually, some bowler-friendly pitches (in South Africa) plus one moderately impressive Test (the most recent one to this post) and the almost inevitable influx of a few poor strokes (2nd half of Ashes 2006\07). I don't feel he's bowled any better since 2005, at all.

& yes, Ponting wasn't disgraced, but his was still a relative failure. He averaged under 40 for the series, boosted by one magnificent innings, and comfortably down of his near-60 career average.

Ponting was kept under wraps by some excellent bowling, but there's no way he was a relative failure. Comparing to a career average is always a poor way to go about things, but Ponting's productivity, while reduced by said excellent bowling to an extent, was also reduced by other factors. I feel he played less well in said series than he as (OF TIMES!!!!!) since.

Clarke and Martyn were dropped but both came back and (the former particularly) have scored good runs. Katich hasn't been seen in the test team again, but is making hay in the Pura Cup, so really only Gillespie (who was dropped after 3 tests of the series anyway) and Kasper (only selected due to McGrath's injuries anyway) weakened the Aussie line-up when compared to thise who've followed since.

It downgrades both our achievement and Australia to say they weren't a very, very good team in 2005.

Clarke may have come back but he's blatantly come back a totally changed player. He's impossibly better now than he was in 2005.

Katich and Gillespie are both making hay in the Pura Cup, meanwhile. And both were woefully below-par in 2005 - they played less well than normal and in Katich's case had some misfortune. Hence, Australia were lesser in 2005 than they have been since.

 

[Ikki]

As others have said, it's hard to say too many good things about the series because we lost...but I can't say I have ever watched a better series of Cricket.

Also, if you want to see why Warne is the greatest spinner, nay bowler, of all-time, you watch this series and get a glimpse of why he is who he is.

 

[Jono]

Absolutely brilliant series, loved every minute of it.

Highlight will always be Simon Jones bowling to Michael Clarke. I had fallen asleep on the couch for a while during Australia's chase of England's total, and randomly I woke up. I looked at the TV and the first ball I see involves Clarke shouldering arms to a ridicullously brilliant reverse swinging delivery by Jones which uprooted his off stump. Let me just say I was awake for the rest of the test!

I jumped up and was said something along the lines of "Holy ****, here we go!"

As others have said, it's hard to say too many good things about the series because we lost...but I can't say I have ever watched a better series of Cricket.

Also, if you want to see why Warne is the greatest spinner, nay bowler, of all-time, you watch this series and get a glimpse of why he is who he is.

Ah but you see he didn't win any matches, or series for his team. Hence he failed.

Note sarcasm here. Just to show that sometimes, no matter how well you go, you just can't get your team over the line if the rest of them aren't performing, or if the opposition are performing extremely well.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Gilchrist has been virtually nothing since 2005, in any guise, against any team.

Lee, meanwhile, has bowled no better than ever. He's had the odd very weak team (West Indies) and, unusually, some bowler-friendly pitches (in South Africa) plus one moderately impressive Test (the most recent one to this post) and the almost inevitable influx of a few poor strokes (2nd half of Ashes 2006\07). I don't feel he's bowled any better since 2005, at all.

Ponting was kept under wraps by some excellent bowling, but there's no way he was a relative failure. Comparing to a career average is always a poor way to go about things, but Ponting's productivity, while reduced by said excellent bowling to an extent, was also reduced by other factors. I feel he played less well in said series than he as (OF TIMES!!!!!) since.

Clarke may have come back but he's blatantly come back a totally changed player. He's impossibly better now than he was in 2005.

Katich and Gillespie are both making hay in the Pura Cup, meanwhile. And both were woefully below-par in 2005 - they played less well than normal and in Katich's case had some misfortune. Hence, Australia were lesser in 2005 than they have been since.

Even leaving all the rest of the post aside (which I will because it's utterly counter-intuitive; a player who averages two-thirds of his career figures hasn't been a relative failure? Ok...) does it not occur to you that "Australia were lesser in 2005 than they have been since" because we didn't allow them to be as impressive as they've been since?

 

[silentstriker]

As others have said, it's hard to say too many good things about the series because we lost...but I can't say I have ever watched a better series of Cricket.

Also, if you want to see why Warne is the greatest spinner, nay bowler, of all-time, you watch this series and get a glimpse of why he is who he is.

To be fair, England make all spinners look world class. That was a fantastic series for him, but England collapsing to spin is not new.

 

[Richard]

Even leaving all the rest of the post aside (which I will because it's utterly counter-intuitive; a player who averages two-thirds of his career figures hasn't been a relative failure? Ok...) does it not occur to you that "Australia were lesser in 2005 than they have been since" because we didn't allow them to be as impressive as they've been since?

Some players were, some players weren't.

Some players were lesser purely because of their own foibles - Gillespie being the prime case.

The Gillespie that bowled in 2002\03 would NEVER have allowed England to treat him like they did in 2005. Never.

Similarly, the Ponting of 2002\03, and 2003\04, and 2006\07, would (probably) have scored less runs than he did then in 2005, but equally, he'd be likely to have done a damn sight more than he did in 2005.